ITAT Mumbai held that where segmental accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments have to be made only in respect of the international transactions with associated enterprises [AE]. Thus, TPO directed to compute the transfer pricing [TP] adjustment, restricting it to the international transactions undertaken with associated enterprises.
Delhi High Court held that recalling bail order in GST evasion on account of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka denied since there is no perversity in the order. Further, there is nothing to show that he is a flight Risk or there is any likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence.
NCLT Indore held that Superintendent of CGST is guilty of contempt for non-complying with the direction issued by Adjudicating Authority to refund the amount to Corporate debtor that was recovered during moratorium.
Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercisable in absence of any perversity in the order passed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that reference by Council of ICAI for suspension of name of CA from register of Member for period of one year is accepted since professional misconduct of CA i.e. manipulation of public issue and ante-dated stock-investment duly established.
Supreme Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a Cheque. Thus, multiple cheques arise from one transaction will give arise to separate prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act.
ITAT Pune held that subsidy received from Maharashtra Government under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal dismissed.ITAT Pune held that subsidy received from Maharashtra Government under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 is to be treated as income liable to be taxed for the year under consideration. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) upheld and appeal dismissed.
ITAT Chennai held that recharacterization of business from ‘software development service provider’ to ‘contract R&D service provider’ not justifiable as BAPA and TPO’s earlier assessment accepted characterisation of the Assessee to be a Software Development service provider. Hence, upward transfer pricing adjustment deleted.
CESTAT Delhi held that recovery of duty under section 28(1) of the Customs Act for violation of condition of license not sustained as no allegation of violation raised by DGFT who issued the import license. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that long-term capital gains earned from the transactions, which are grandfathered as per the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, doesn’t form part of total income hence cannot be adjusted against the brought forward long-term capital loss incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside.
